I won't respond to the first part of the question . My comments are really restricted to what's in the order in council. Whether the ombudsman should be going beyond that is not a matter for me to comment on.
On the Veterans Review and Appeal Board itself, the order in council is very clear that he can't interfere in the process or overturn it. He could conceivably receive some complaints from clients that the lawyer who represented them from BPA didn't act in the manner they expected, or any number of other issues. They might complain that the hearing wasn't scheduled at a time that was convenient for them—I'm sort of making this up as I'm going along—which really wouldn't't affect the integrity of the decision. As noted in the order in council, there's very little discretion there.
As the ombudsman moves forward with his communication strategy and people get a better understanding, I'm sure some clients will feel that the ombudsman has the authority to overturn a decision, which isn't the case, of course. You will get clients who will complain, and it's their right to complain. We live in a democracy, and the reason we're in the democracy is because we have traditional veterans and modern-day veterans who fought and continue to fight for the principle of democracy. Having somebody exercising their rights is a good thing.
As the minister said many times in this forum and other places, you can never do too much for a veteran. At the end of the day, even if you've been very injured and your country is paying you the maximum amount allowed by the law and the regulations, how can you put a price tag on someone whose life, sad to say, has been greatly changed? So you can never do too much for a veteran.
Sometimes veterans will go to the ombudsman because they would like to have more benefits than what can be provided, whether through the Veterans Review and Appeal Board or other areas. But at the end of the day, you can't do too much for a veteran.